Not bitter, city deserved it and Mancini is right, they did play the best football. But seeing a lot of stuff about people saying United cannot say City bought the title as they have spent big on players like Rooney and Ferdinand. United have earned their spending power through a history of success and a global presence. Income last year was 331 mill giving united a cashflow of 32 mill. City's was -178 mill. United have spent big on players but but this was over a number of years and they never went out and bought a whole team. Don't think there was any city player on the pitch today who was at the club before the takeover. In recent years city have spent over 900 million. No other PL club can compete with that. United did well in my eyes to finish on the same points as them considering they were odds-on favourites to win before the season after their transfer activity. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...ontenders.html

(Original post by Favourite Worst Nightmare)
Not bitter, city deserved it and Mancini is right, they did play the best football. But seeing a lot of stuff about people saying United cannot say City bought the title as they have spent big on players like Rooney and Ferdinand. United have earned their spending power through a history of success and a global presence. Income last year was 331 mill giving united a cashflow of 32 mill. City's was -178 mill. United have spent big on players but but this was over a number of years and they never went out and bought a whole team. Don't think there was any city player on the pitch today who was at the club before the takeover. In recent years city have spent over 900 million. No other PL club can compete with that. United did well in my eyes to finish on the same points as them considering they were odds-on favourites to win before the season after their transfer activity. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...ontenders.html

I'll repost what Craig_D posted earlier because I think his post summed it up:

(Original post by Craig_D)
United have earned their way to the top and have stayed there. Yes, they are rich and spend big money on players, but that's because they earned that money through playing well for several decades. City on the other hand have a rich owner and have had millions thrown at them, a decade ago they were nothing; they have not earned their way to the top, they have bought their way to the top. Maybe you disagree, and that's fair enough, but personally I feel that there's a big difference.

(Original post by fosterwho)
I'll repost what Craig_D posted earlier because I think his post summed it up:

Thank you

I've seen a few people talking about it on Facebook too, with people saying that 'United buy the league all the time'. Back in the mid '90s, United won because of the combined work of Scholes, Butt, Giggs, Beckham, Neville, and so on. These weren't players United had bought but instead were ones that the club had nurtured themselves. The early success of these players are what made United's wealth, leading to the club in more recent years being able to buy Ferdinand, Veron, van Nistelrooy, van der Sar, Rooney, and so on. In other words, the wealth was earned and therefore I think United deserved those players. City is a very different case, spending vast sums of money simply because it has been handed to them in the last few years, and becoming a completely different team - there's nobody at City who was there 10 years ago. United still have Giggs and Scholes, and until recently Neville, and they remain first team players.

(Original post by Hopple)
You could argue that their Sheikh was a very big fan? Unless you want to limit how much each person is allowed to give to their club, all's fair It's not ideal, but you'll have to find a better distinction in order to take the moral high ground.

I think if you argued the sheikh was a very big fan you would be wrong. Why would he be a big fan of a team that is thousands of miles away and resides around mid-table? Nonetheless, I wasn't saying what they have done is unfair or trying to take the moral high ground. I was saying that it is unfair to say city haven't bought the title. They did, and yes that is allowed. It is fair. But they still bought it so it is unfair to then say united fans cannot remind them of this.

I don't like it when people say it's annoying when people say United cannot say City bought the league.

In seriousness, though, I agree. It's a bit like playing Football Manager and choosing a top club with a big budget (and spending that budget) compared to choosing a crap club and using cheats to buy loads of good players.

(Original post by Favourite Worst Nightmare)
I think if you argued the sheikh was a very big fan you would be wrong. Why would he be a big fan of a team that is thousands of miles away and resides around mid-table?

Why should any team have fans thousands of miles away? Being in the Premier League is publicity enough to attract fans, though of course, winning stuff will get you more.

Nonetheless, I wasn't saying what they have done is unfair or trying to take the moral high ground. I was saying that it is unfair to say city haven't bought the title. They did, and yes that is allowed. It is fair. But they still bought it so it is unfair to then say united fans cannot remind them of this.

Why do you want to remind them of it if you don't feel that 'buying the title' is unfair? I'm not saying Man U fans can't remind Man City fans, but I would question by what yard stick that is meant as a criticism.

United are still the dominant team and will remain so; we saw with Chelsea that excellence could not be bought, if titles could.

In fact you could argue that the commercialisation of the Premier League, which leads to these buy-outs, has actually improved the chance smaller clubs get to tackle United's hegemony. When you look at the many other leagues where one or two teams have kept the trophy since time immemorial ...

United do spend a lot of money, but it's usually on players that will grow and develop over time.
Best examples at the moment has to be when they clinched Vidic and Evra from "relative" obscurity.
Hopefully the young players in the team at the moment will follow this lead.

Listen guys-City's owner is not stupid...he cannont spend as much money as previous seasons if they did it would be finishing touches 1 or 2 max players in in few years. It was the same with chelsea's owner. There has to be an end point to this spending. However manutd still have not spent much compared to Manc city (does not mean they will spend as much as them though!) and had so many difficulties this season and are second-only by goal difference.

(Original post by MEPLUS-->YOU)
Listen guys-City's owner is not stupid...he cannont spend as much money as previous seasons if they did it would be finishing touches 1 or 2 max players in in few years. It was the same with chelsea's owner. There has to be an end point to this spending. However manutd still have not spent much compared to Manc city (does not mean they will spend as much as them though!) and had so many difficulties this season and are second-only by goal difference.

Carm it...We will be back stronger!

They'd still have to spend big on wages, not necessarily just inflated transfer fees.

(Original post by LtCommanderData)
I don't like it when people say it's annoying when people say United cannot say City bought the league.

In seriousness, though, I agree. It's a bit like playing Football Manager and choosing a top club with a big budget (and spending that budget) compared to choosing a crap club and using cheats to buy loads of good players.

Pretty much this, it's like taking a midtable team like Everton, Fulham etc and giving yourself £500M transfer budget in Football Manager, it's just cheating and I do hope FFP limits this - "winning the football lottery" basically. What's happened at City could have happened to any other club.

I've seen a few people talking about it on Facebook too, with people saying that 'United buy the league all the time'. Back in the mid '90s, United won because of the combined work of Scholes, Butt, Giggs, Beckham, Neville, and so on. These weren't players United had bought but instead were ones that the club had nurtured themselves. The early success of these players are what made United's wealth, leading to the club in more recent years being able to buy Ferdinand, Veron, van Nistelrooy, van der Sar, Rooney, and so on. In order words, the wealth was earned and therefore I think United deserved those players. City is a very different case, spending vast sums of money simply because it has been handed to them in the last few years.

Stop trying to rewrite history with your spiel.

For starters if it weren't for Davies way back in the early 1990s you would have been bankrupt in your first decade. Under Davies you were known as 'moneybags United' apparently and you got yourself a bit of success then.

Then Martin Edwards poured a lot of money into United before the PL came into existence. In the 1989/1990 season you spent £8 million in transfers on the likes of Ince and Pallister, your total revenues the previous season was only £9 million when you factor in wages, club running cost etc you spent nearly 150% of your turnover. Those two in particular were a major part of your success in the coming years.

This initial investment allowed you to gain the on pitch success to float the club so successfully. Without that initial investment I sincerely doubt you would've floated so well.

Then that floatation allowed you to bring in Cantona and the British record fee Roy Keane. Those players again helped form the back bone. Then still in 1995 with money generated by the inception of the PL you signed Andy Cole again for a record fee. Then bolstered the squad again with Dwight Yorke for £12 million in 1998. And then signed the likes of Veron and Ferdinand for £30 million in the early 2000s, again record fees.